Input on our Accident and Incidents Forum... What do you want? How do you want it?

[drrich2]

I'll put two points up only for the moment in addition to agreeing it's an opt in.

1. I know BSAC isn't US, but they do provide a decent report every year giving a list of the incidents with as much detail as possible. they also summarise the years' record against other years. They are well worth a read. when they come out I post a link, but not sure how many people bother. It's a shame you have this info out there to learn from and it's not used. So perhaps a way to incorporate these reports?

This point struck me as important, and while we're on the subject, I think we might be well-served not to gloss over it. I've been struggling off & on since reading it to figure out why A&I threads if anything are criticized for drawing too much 'rubber-necking' whereas reporting by BSAC (doesn't DAN also so some reporting?) is often ignored (at least by some, despite I'm guessing being presumed to be of highly quality?).

The question of whether there's a way to incorporate these reports is key. If you're open to expanding the function of the forum section a bit, perhaps interested people who review those reports could start a thread with one, and we could, as a community, take a look at it, the same way we currently do? I assume the social aspect, including the benefits of community discussion, is what gives A&I threads an edge in drawing eye balls, so to speak.

But be mindful copying & pasting from another organization's material might be copyright infringement, so it would require some thought as to how to go about it (and maybe permission from the report's owner).

Another aspect of an A&I thread is the mystery factor; that this is an unsolved case. Reports by BSAC or DAN may be presumed to have already been explored/figured out to the max., so some may see little point in discussing them.

Turns out that speculating may serve a useful function.

Richard.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

This point struck me as important, and while we're on the subject, I think we might be well-served not to gloss over it. I've been struggling off & on since reading it to figure out why A&I threads if anything are criticized for drawing too much 'rubber-necking' whereas reporting by BSAC (doesn't DAN also so some reporting?) is often ignored . . .

I wouldn't say "ignored" but posted way after the horse has left the barn. For instance, the DAN Fatality reports are always from 2 years back. In other words, in 2016 they will report on accidents in 2014. It's not that they're lazy, just that it takes a while for them to collect the information, verify it, scrub it when necessary, fill in the blanks, then write it up coherently, draw some conclusions overall, and then release everything to the public.

In general, and on this forum specifically, divers want answers NOW. There have been posts before the body & gear has been recovered telling what went wrong when there was no way to know that, let alone test and confirm the hypothesis.

So I think what you're seeing as "ignored" is more a question of lack of immediacy.

Reports by BSAC or DAN may be presumed to have already been explored/figured out to the max., so some may see little point in discussing them. Turns out that speculating may serve a useful function.

Harder to dispute those nasty things called "facts" when they been vetted. I've said this before and it's one of my favorite quotes (from "Man of LaMancha"): "Facts???? Facts are the enemy of truth!!!!"

Richard.[/QUOTE]

 

[sunnyboy]

I pretty much like A&I the way it is. I do prefer less moderation over more moderation, although I do agree with moderating clear "POV warriors".

 

[lowviz]

...//... In general, and on this forum specifically, divers want answers NOW. There have been posts before the body & gear has been recovered telling what went wrong when there was no way to know that, let alone test and confirm the hypothesis. ...

Understood, but I still believe that there is an even higher level of value that somehow emerges from the usual mudwrestling. Experts do watch this pot. The occasional idea/nagging concern does occasionally bubble to the surface and will cause an expert pause to consider.

I was trained to think by someone who I consider to be among the very best. Bio - Andrea Zaferes - Team Lifeguard Systems - Public Safety Water Rescue Training and Equipment

 

[sunnyboy]

The only thing I don't like is when it's obvious that someone has such a pet topic that they don't even clearly read the incident. Like someone perishes on the surface and initial reports suggest medical condition yet someone starts ranting about say... "deep stops" or other recent firestorm topic. That's really the only moderation I'd like to see continue.

 

[uncfnp]

I agree with CuzzA that there are certain segments of diving that draw the most...passionate discussion. But I wonder too if some of the conflict is from the expectations of the readers. And here I see two camps, the uninformed masses (me) that don't really understand accident analysis but just look to the threads as a means to avoid becoming the subject of a thread. And others that know this stuff and are offended, for lack of a better term, by speculation that they see as inappropriate and are looking for fact based analysis only.

 

[seaseadee]

First hand knowledge (eye witness) trumps anything else. No doubt about it. I've started threads with information from eye witnesses that didn't want to open themselves up to litigation or unwanted scrutiny. I am given a lot of information due to my position in the community. Right or wrong, I refuse to divulge anything told to me in confidence. I assume it's all in confidence unless told otherwise. However, quite often the eye witnesses want the full story to be known and I don't mind accommodating them. Rob, I appreciate your frustration. I'm not sure how to address it without virtually eliminating the entire forum.

When I first started diving a few years ago, I didn't know what I didn't know. I found scubaboard, and the A&I forum was instrumental in pointing me in the right direction. It is certainly a worthwhile resource for beginners even if it serves to remind them that they need to look beyond the CYA safety training they received.
Many forums have gatekeepers that have to approve a post. You could simply have mods approve or disapprove of a post if it strays too far into victim blaming. If they get called power mad satraps then so be it.

 

[The Chairman]

I think I understand the rule now,

Well, for all that is good and holy, please 'splain it to me! This is probably the biggest reason why I don't come in here very often. I have no idea how to avoid breaking a rule I simply don't understand. If the rest of you haven't guessed by now, I don't "rule" ScubaBoard. I like for us to rule ourselves by consensus. I trust Uncle Ricky, and hope he comes to this party, but I could never get my mind around this. Others seemed to, so I chalked it up to me not being able to understand everything.

The question of whether there's a way to incorporate these reports is key.

It's pretty simple: link to their report. Unfortunately, few reports are timely enough to keep up with SB. We've moved on to other incidents way before we get any official facts. The anomaly is the reporting from the Eagle's Nest incident. Wow, that was nice! I even encouraged one training agency to make this their aim and I was banned from their forum for having a poor attitude. Talk about censorship. Don't ask who it was: I'm not interested in dissing any agency. I'm not that petty.

Turns out that speculating may serve a useful function.

I wonder if we got the facts from Eagle's Nest because they finally figured out we were going to talk about it anyway. The easiest and quickest way to squash rumors is to post the truth.

In general, and on this forum specifically, divers want answers NOW.

This upsets a few. I remember a joke from Billy Crystal about Lincoln. It was a groaner and as people were doing just that he quipped "What? Too soon?" Do we need a grace period? If so, how long? I do remember one of the Eagles Nest recovery time complained bitterly that their hair hadn't dried and people were demanding answers. In fact there were a number of combative things said on Facebook that were born of their fatigue and raw emotions. I was castigated in particular for wanting the questions answered immediately, when in reality, I just wanted answers if/when they became available. They were reading "now" into quests that never asked for "now".

If they get called power mad satraps then so be it.

That made me chuckle. I had forgotten that I had put that as my 'temporary' title. Thanks!

 

[Jared0425]

In my humble opinion, I am more on the side of Diver0001. The Accidents and Incidents thread can and has been helpful in understanding what went wrong, how can we learn from the victims mistakes, how has this incident affected us or how close we came to having a similar fate if not for....

The problem I have noticed is that the threads have a tendency to spiral out of control with sheer speculation or multiple pages of random conversation. I am happy that the point of view warriors (sometimes right, but mostly wrong) have left or was shamed enough out of the forum.

That being said, a few more controls should be in place. Accidents with too little or no information should not be posted unless one has access to more detailed information that can cut down speculation by quite a bit. The two Eagles Nest threads went on for over 50 pages and nothing was really learned except by the posts that cave divers whom knew the system, and the recovery team that retrieved the victims knew almost frost hand what "probably" happened with great educated guesses. As a Public Safety Diver, there are cases that are 2 years old or more that I still cannot discuss due to litigation that I would love to inform our community about and how us divers can learn something from them. Unfortunately, we live in a world where people want information immediately within hours or sometimes minutes after the incident has occurred while in reality the information could take weeks to years for it to come out. By time it does, the incident is long forgotten and any meaningful discussion of facts is a forgone proposition.

Another thing I noticed is some of us have lost friends (some close), and their demise has been posted on this forum. I could see how people become offended by some of the comments that I read. For instance a tech diver/ instructor whom was a mentor and friend to me met his demise 160ft below the surface of Lake Huron 2 years ago. The comments and speculation was so far off and posted by people that had less than 100 dives under their belt felt the need to thump their chest and chastise this (dead) man and his diving skills that many would never master or get close to. I could not comment due to the fact that I was involved with the investigation and was even part of the effort to recover his gear that other dives teams could not do. I was offended and quite pissed at the posters, but also at myself for not being able to set the record straight.

I think moderation is great in moderation and I also see NetDoc's view on what happens when the controls start to get strict and can cause the demise of the site. I think that a checklist must be made before posting most importantly the Terms of the Thread and who can post. I also want new divers to be able to ask questions that can be answered kindly and informative but without derailing the thread and turning it into 50 page nightmare that takes hours to catch up on with no informative posts. This is all my opinion, take it or leave it, and thanks for the chance to have this chat.

Jared

 

[clownfishsydney]

I would like to thank Ken Kurtis, John Adsit and Pete Murray for their comments, I think I totally agree with all they have written.

Unfortunately I have been directly involved with a number of dive accidents, including some where very close friends have lost their lives. I have also lost too many friends to diving accidents where I was not involved. In some of these cases, I have never been able to find out what happened as the people on the dive closed up and released no information. This is not helpful to me as a friend and not helpful to the dive community as a whole.

I have also been involved in investigating dive accidents for a number of other deaths, asked mostly by the family who knew of my work on the Gabe and Tina Watson case. In one of these cases, I proved that the claim being made by the dive operator about what happened was a lie. Thankfully, my exposure of this and work with the investigating Police means that operator is now basically out of business.

For all the accidents covered by this forum, I read and attempt to understand what happened and why. As a diver who does lots of varied diving (from shallow reef to deep wrecks), there is always something to learn from an accident, even if some of the posts are speculation.

Until someone in the dive industry decides to investigate each and every dive death, then this forum is the only other option. DAN Asia/Pacific does not really investigate accidents, all it does is review reports from Police/Coroner and writes this up. It does no independent invesigation which means no-one looks at things that have not been asked or where wrong assumptions have been made (eg Gabe Watson's interview where police totally misunderstood what he said).

I have made it clear to my wife, my family and my diving friends that if I die in a diving accident, I expect them to post all the information that they know about what happened, even if that points to me stuffing up big time. They know that any speculation about that on forums like this should be tolerated and, in fact, encouraged. I do not want them, or anyone who may have been involved with me, to feel that they should not comment to respect my memory. I also have made it clear that even if the divers on the dive stuffed up and caused my death (directly or indirectly), they should not feel that admitting this will have any reprocussions. My family knows that I expect them to take no legal action nor push the authorities to take action against a fellow diver (a dive operation is something else if they caused it, eg bad air).

I do not want anyone to suffer what Gabe Watson went through false accusations and the revenge mentality of Tina's family.

That is the only way that we can learn, from understanding how others have died and hopefully changing things (our behaviour or the system) so that it does not happen again.

As such, I think no changes are required.